Climate Change

Highlights US natural gas prices will remain well supported over the April-October injection season, as the global economic expansion gains traction, particularly in Europe, which also is refilling depleted storage levels. China's natgas demand is expected to rise more than 8% yoy, and EM Asia consumption also will be robust, which will revive US liquified natural gas (LNG) exports. Exports of US light-sweet crude into the North Sea Brent pricing pool – currently accounting for close to half the physical supply underpinning the global oil-price benchmark – also will increase over the course of the year, particularly in the summer, when maintenance will markedly reduce the physical supply of crudes making up the Brent index. At the margin, coal demand will increase in the US, as industrial natgas demand and LNG exports incentivize electric generators to favor coal. Higher-than-expected summer temperatures in the US also would boost coal demand.  This will be tempered somewhat in Europe, where carbon-emissions rights traded through €50/MT for the first time this week on the EU's Emission Trading System (ETA). We expect US LNG and oil exports to revive this year (Chart of the Week) and remain long natgas in 1Q22. Feature The importance of US LNG and crude oil exports out of the US Gulf to the global economy is only now becoming apparent. As demand for these fossil fuels grows and the supply side continues to confront a highly uncertain risk-reward tradeoff, their importance will only grow. In natgas markets, US LNG cargoes out of the US Gulf balanced demand coming from Asia and Europe this past winter, which was sharply colder than expected and stretched supply chains globally. As a widening economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic spurs industrial, residential and commercial demand, and inventories in Europe and Asia are re-built in preparation for next winter, US LNG exports will be called upon to meet increasing demand, particularly since they are priced attractively vs regional importing benchmarks, with differentials vs the US presently $4+/MMBtu vs Europe and $5+/MMBtu vs Asia (Chart 2).1 Chart of the WeekUS LNG, Oil Export Growth Will Rebound Chart 2Lower US Natgas Prices Encourage LNG Exports In oil markets, an ongoing kerfuffle in the pricing of Brent Blend brought about by falling North Sea crude oil production makes American light-sweet crude oil exports from the Gulf (i.e., WTI produced mostly in the Permian Basin) account for almost half of the physical supplies in this critical benchmark-pricing market.2 US LNG Exports Will Increase US natural gas prices will remain well supported as the global economic expansion gains traction, and the US and Europe open the April-October injection season well bid (Chart 3). US inventories are expected to end the Apr-Oct injection season at just over 3.7 TCF according to the EIA, very close to where they ended the 2020 injection season. Chart 3US, Europe Rebuild Storage Higher US LNG exports, industrial, commercial and residential demand will be offset by lower consumption from electric generators this year, netting to a slight decline in overall demand. The EIA expects generators to take advantage of lower generating costs to be had burning coal to produce electricity, a view we share given the current differentials in the forward curves for each fuel (Chart 4).3 On the supply side, the EIA's expecting output to remain unchanged from last year at just under 91.5 BCF/d in 2021. Higher LNG exports, even as generator demand is falling, pushes prices higher this year – averaging $3.04/MMBtu this year – which leads to a slight increase in output in 2022. For our part, we continue to expect higher prices during the November-March heating season than currently are clearing the market and remain long 1Q22 $3.50/MMBtu calls vs. short $3.75/MMbtu calls. As of Tuesday night, when we mark to market, this position was up 20.8% since inception on 8 April 2021. Chart 4Lower Prices Will Favour Increased Coal Demand Natgas demand could surprise on the upside during the injection season if air-conditioning demand comes in stronger than expected and production remains essentially unchanged this year. This could reduce LNG exports and slow the rate of inventory refill in the US, which could further advantage coal as a burner fuel for generators in the US. The US National Weather Service's Climate Prediction Center expects above-average temperatures for most of the US population centers this summer (Chart 5). This could become a semi-permanent feature of the market if current temperature trends persist (Chart 6). Based on analyses’ run by the NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information, 2021 "is very likely to rank among the ten warmest years on record," with lower (6%) odds of ranking in the top five hottest years on record.4 Chart 5Odds Of Hotter Summer Rising Chart 6Higher Global Temperatures Could Become A Recurring Phenomenon The Crude Kerfuffle As the Chart of the Week shows, US exports of light-sweet crude oil peaked at ~ 3.7mm b/d in February 2020, just before the COVID-19 pandemic hit the world full force. Exports out of the US Gulf – i.e., WTI priced against the Midland, TX, gathering hub – accounted for ~ 95% of these volumes. With exports currently running ~ 2.5mm b/d, more than 1mm b/d of readily available export capacity remains in place. Additional volumes will be developed as dredging of the Corpus Christi, TX, progresses. While the surge in US crude oil production has subsided in the wake of the pandemic, it most likely will revive as the markets return to normal operating procedure, additional dredging operations are completed, and storage facilities are built out.5 Existing and additional export capacity of the US's light-sweet crude could not arrive at a more opportune time for the Brent market, which remains in a state of uncertainty as to whether markets will have to adjust to CIF contracts or a work-around to the existing FOB pricing regime, which can be augmented to accommodate increasing WTI volumes.6 This will have to be sorted, as this is the future of the market's most important pricing index (Chart 7). The buildout in crude-oil exporting capacity – and natgas LNG exporting capacity, for that matter – ideally accommodates shale-oil- and -gas assets, which can be ramped up quickly to meet demand, and ramped down quickly as demand falters. The quick payback – 2 to 3 years – on these investments allow the producers to expand and contract output without the massive risks longer-lived conventional assets impose. As OPEC 2.0's spare capacity is returned to the market, this will be a welcome feature of a market that most likely will require oil and gas supplies for decades, despite the uncertainty attending oil-and-gas capex during the transition to a low-carbon energy future. Chart 7Permian Replaces North Sea Losses Bottom Line: As the future of hydrocarbons evolves, the LNG and crude oil exported from the US Gulf will occupy an increasingly important role in these markets. Oil and gas producers are making capex decisions under increasingly uncertain conditions, which favor exactly the type of resources that have propelled the US to the position of the world's largest producer of these fuels – i.e., shale-oil and -gas. Production from these resources can be ramped up and down quickly as prices dictate, and have quick paybacks (2-3 years), which means capital is not tied up for decades as a return is earned.7   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish OPEC 2.0 begins returning 2mm b/d to the market this month, expecting to be done by July. Half of these volumes are accounted for by Saudi Arabia, which voluntarily cut output by 1mm b/d earlier in the year to help balance the market. In line with our maintained hypothesis that OPEC 2.0 prefers prices inside the $60-$70/bbl price band, we expect the return of curtailed production to be front-loaded so as to bring prices down from current levels approaching $70/bbl for Brent (Chart 8). If, as we expect, demand recovers sooner than expected as Europe leans into its vaccination program, additional barrels will be returned to the market to get prices closer to a $60-$65/bbl range. Base Metals: Bullish The International Copper Study Group (ICSG) forecast copper mine production will increase by ~ 3.5% in 2021 and 3.7% in 2022, after adjusting for historical disruption factors. This forecasted increase – after three years of flat mined production growth – is due to a ramp-up of recently commissioned and new copper mines becoming operational in 2021. An improvement in the pandemic situation by 2022 will also boost mined copper production, according to the ICSG. 2020 production remained flat as recoveries in production in some countries due to constrained output in 2019 balanced the negative impacts of the pandemic in others. In Chile, the largest copper producer, state-owned Codelco and Collahuasi reported strong results in March. However, this was countered by a continued downturn at BHP’s Escondida. The world’s largest copper mine saw a drop in production for the eighth consecutive month. This mixed output resulted in a decline in total production of 1.2% year-on-year in March. Precious Metals: Bullish COMEX palladium touched a record high during intraday trading on Tuesday, reaching $3,019/oz due to continued tight market conditions (Chart 9). On the supply side, Nornickel is recovering from flooded mines, which occurred in February. By mid-April, one of the two affected mines was operating at 60% capacity; however, the company's other mine is only expected to come back online by early June. On the demand side, strength in US vehicle sales and a global economic recovery from the pandemic buoyed the metal used in catalytic converters. Palladium prices closed at $2,981.60/oz on Tuesday. Ags/Softs: Neutral Corn again traded above $7/bu earlier in the week on the back of drought-like dry weather conditions in Brazil's principal growing regions and surging US exports, according to Farm Futures. Chart 8 Chart 9   Footnotes 1     Stronger demand from China – where consumption is expected to rise more than 8% yoy – and EM Asia will continue to support LNG demand through the year.  S&P Global Platts Analytics expects Chinese natural gas demand to reach 12,713 Bcf in 2021, up 8.4% from the previous year.  Chinese national oil company Sinopec is slightly more conservative in its outlook, expecting gas demand of ~ 12,006-12,184 Bcf in 2021, up 6-8% from 2020.  China’s average annual increase in natural gas demand is expected to exceed 716 Bcf in the 14th FYP and reach 15,185 Bcf in 2025. 2     Please see CIF Brent Benchmark? published 3 March 2021 by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies for a discussion. 3    In Chart 3, we plot a rough measure of coal- vs natgas-fired generation economics for these fuels based on their average operating heat rates published by the EIA. We would note that a carbon tax would erase much of the benefit accruing to coal at this point in time. 4    Please see NOAA's Global Climate Report - March 2021. 5    Please see Low Rider - Corpus Christi's Ship Channel Dredging Will Streamline Crude Oil Exports published by RBN Energy 3 May 2021. 6    The OIES analysis cited above concludes, "… the volumes of the FOB deliverable crudes are diminishing and some change, bolstering the contract is certainly needed. The most likely compromise is to retain the existing FOB Brent with an inclusion of CIF WTI Midland assessment, netted back to an FOB equivalent North Sea value."  We agree with this assessment.  Please see CIF Brent Benchmark? published 3 March 2021 by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, p. 8. 7     Please see Is shale activity actually profitable? Size matters, says Rystad published 7 February 2019.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights Rising CO2 emissions on the back of stronger global energy growth this year will keep energy markets focused on expanding ESG risks in the buildout of renewable generation via metals mining (Chart of the Week).   EM energy demand is expected to grow 3.4% this year vs. 2019 levels and will account for ~ 70% of global energy demand growth.  Demand in DM economies will fall 3% this year vs 2019 levels.  Overall, global demand is expected to recover all the ground lost to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the IEA.  Rising energy demand will be met by higher fossil-fuel use, with coal demand increasing by more than total renewables generation this year and accounting for more than half of global energy demand growth. Demand for renewable power will increase by 8,300 TWh (8%) this year, the largest y/y increase recorded by the IEA.  As renewables generation is built out, demand for bulks (iron ore and steel) and base metals will increase.1  Building that new energy supply will contribute to rising CO2, particularly in the renewables' supply chains. Feature Energy demand will recover much of the ground lost to the COVID-19 pandemic last year, according to the IEA.2 Most of this is down to successful rollouts of vaccination programs in systemically important economies – e.g., China, the US and the UK – and the massive fiscal and monetary stimulus deployed to carry the global economy through the pandemic. The risk of further lockdowns and uncontrolled spread of variants of the virus remains high, but, at present, progress continues to be made and wider vaccine distribution can be expected. The IEA expects a global recovery in energy demand of 4.6% this year, which will put total demand at ~ 0.5% above 2019 levels. The global rebound will be led by EM economies, where demand is expected to grow 3.4% this year vs. 2019 levels and will account for ~ 70% of global energy demand growth. Energy demand in DM economies will fall 3% this year vs 2019 levels. Overall, global demand is expected to recover all the ground lost to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the IEA. Chart of the WeekGlobal CO2 Emissions Will Rebound Post-COVID-19 Coal demand will lead the rebound in fossil-fuel use, which is expected to account for more than total renewables demand globally this year, covering more than half of global energy demand growth. This will push CO2 emissions up by 5% this year. Asia coal demand – led by China's and India's world-leading coal-plant buildout over the past 20 years – will account for 80% of world demand (Chart 2). Chart 2China, India Lead Coal-Fired Generation Buildout Demand for renewable power will post its biggest year-on-year gain on record, increasing by 8,300 TWh (8%) this year. This increase comes at the back of roughly a decade of an increasing share of electricity from renewables globally (Chart 3). As renewables generation is built out, demand for bulks (iron ore and steel) and base metals will increase.3 Building that new energy supply will contribute to rising CO2, particularly in the renewables' supply chains. Chart 3Share of Electricity From Renewables Has Been Increasing ESG Risks Increase With Renewables Buildout Governments have pledged to invest vast sums of money into the green energy transition, to reduce fossil fuels consumption and deforestation, thus curbing temperature increases. In addition, banks have pledged trillions will be made available to support the buildout of renewable technologies over the coming years. The World Bank, under the most ambitious scenarios considered (IEA ETP B2DS and IRENA REmap), projects that renewables, will make up approximately 90% of the installed electricity generation capacity up to 2050. This analysis excludes oil, biomass and tidal energy. (Chart 4). Building these renewable energy sources will be extremely mineral intensive (Chart 5). Chart 4Renewables Potential Is Huge … While we have highlighted issues such as a lack of mining capex and decreasing ore grades in past research – both of which can be addressed by higher metals and minerals prices – the environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks posed by mining are equally important factors for investors, policymakers and mining companies to consider.4 The mining industry generally uses three principal sources of energy for its operations – diesel fuel (mostly in moving mined ore down the supply chain for processing), grid electricity and explosives. Of these three, diesel and electricity consumption contributes substantially to mining’s GHG emissions. In the mining stage, land clearing, drilling, blasting, crushing and hauling require a considerable amount of energy, and hence emit the highest amounts of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Chart 5… As Are Its Mineral Requirements The Environmental Impact Of Mining Under the scenarios depicted in Chart 5, copper suppliers could be called on to produce approximately 21mm MT of the red metal annually between now and 2050, which is equivalent to a 7% annual increase of supplies vs. the 2017 reference year shown in the chart. Mining sufficient amounts of copper, a metal which is critical to the renewable energy buildout, both in terms of quantity and versatility, will test miners' and governments' ability to extract sufficient amounts of ore for further processing without massively damaging the environment or indigenous populations' habitats (Chart 6). Chart 6Copper Spans All Renewables Technologies A recent risk analysis of 308 undeveloped copper orebodies found that for 180 of the orebodies – roughly equivalent to 570mm MT of copper – ore-grade risk was characterized as moderate-to-high risk.5 High risk implies a lower concentration of metal in the ore deposits. Mining in ore bodies with lower copper grades will be more energy intensive, and thus will emit more greenhouse gases. Table 1 is a risk matrix of the 40 mines that have the most amount of copper tonnage in this analysis: 27 of these mines displayed in the matrix have a medium-to-high grade risk. Table 1Mining Risk Matrix Another analysis established a negative relationship between the ore-grade quality and energy consumption across mines for different metals and minerals.6 This paper found that, as ore grade depletes, the energy needed to extract it and send it along the supply chain for further processing is exponentially higher (Chart 7). Lastly, a recent examination found that in 2018, primary metals and mining accounted for approximately 10% of the total greenhouse gases. Using a case study of Chile, the world’s largest producer of the red metal, the researchers found that fuel consumption increased by 130% and electricity consumption per unit of mined copper increased by 32% from 2001 to 2017. This increase was primarily due to decreasing ore grades.7 As ore grades continue to fall, these exponential relationships likely will persist or become more significant. Chart 7Energy Use Rises As Ore Quality Falls Bottom Line: While technology can improve extraction, it cannot reduce the minimum energy required for the mining process. This increased energy use will contribute to the total amount of CO2 and other GHGs emitted in the process of extracting the ores required to realize a low-carbon future. Trade-Off Between CO2 Emissions And Economic Development A recent Reuters analysis highlights the gap between EM and DM from the perspective of their renewable energy transition priorities.8 Of the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), “Taking action to combat climate change” takes precedence over the rest for DM economies. This is largely because they have already dealt with other energy and income intensive SDGs such as improvements in healthcare and poverty reduction. The large scale of unmet energy demand in developing countries poses a huge challenge to controlling CO2 emissions. The populations of these countries are growing fast and are projected to continue increasing over the next three decades. Rising populations, make the issue of a "green-energy transition" extremely dynamic – i.e., not only do EM economies need to replace existing fossil fuels, but they also need to add enough extra zero-emission fuel sources to meet the growth in energy demand. Bottom Line: Coupled with the increased amount of energy required to mine the same amount of metal (due to lower ore grades), rising energy demand resulting from a burgeoning population in EM economies - which use fossil fuels to meet their primary needs - will require more metals to be mined for the renewable energy transition. This will further increase the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from mine activity, and increase the risk to indigenous populations living close-by to the sources of this new metals supply. ESG risks will increase as a result, presenting greater challenges to attracting funding to these efforts.   Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish OPEC 2.0 was expected to stick with its decision to return ~ 2mm b/d of supply to the market at its ministerial meeting Wednesday. Markets remain wary of demand slowing as COVID-19-induced lockdowns persist and case counts increase globally. The production being returned to market includes 1mm b/d of voluntary cuts by Saudi Arabia, which could, if needs be, keep barrels off the market if demand weakens. Base Metals: Bullish Front-month COMEX copper is holding above $4.50/lb, after breaching its 11-year high earlier this week. The proximate cause of the initial lift above that level was news of a strike by Chilean port workers on Monday protesting restrictions on early pension-fund drawdowns, according to mining.com. After a slight breather, prices returned to trading north of $4.50/lb by mid-week. Last week, we raised our Dec21 COMEX copper price forecast to $5.00/lb from $4.50/lb. Separately, high-grade iron ore (65% Fe) hit record highs, while the benchmark grade (62% Fe) traded above $190/MT earlier in the week on the back of lower-than-expected production by major suppliers and USD weakness. Steel futures on the Shanghai Futures Exchange hit another record as well, as strong demand and threats of mandated reductions in Chinese steel output to reduce pollution loom (Chart 8). Precious Metals: Bullish Rising COVID cases, especially in India, Brazil and Japan are increasing gold’s safe-haven appeal (Chart 9). The US CFTC, in its Commitment of Traders (COT) report for the week ending April 20, stated that speculators raised their COMEX gold bullish positions. At the end of the two-day FOMC meeting, the Fed decided against lifting interest rates and withdrawing support for the US economy. However, officials sounded more optimistic about the economy than they did in March. The decision did not give any sign interest rates would be lifted, or asset purchases would be tapered against the backdrop of a steadily improving economy.  Net, this could increase demand for gold, as inflationary pressures rise. As of Tuesday’s close, COMEX gold was trading at $1778/oz. Ags/Softs: Neutral Corn and bean futures settled down by mid-week after a sharp rally earlier. After rising to a new eight-year high just below $7/bushel due to cold weather in the US, and fears a lower harvest in Brazil will reduce global grain supplies, corn settled down to ~ $6.85/bu at mid-week trading. Beans traded above $15.50/bu earlier in the week, their highest since June 2014, and settled down to ~ $15.36/bu by mid-week. Attention remains focused on global supplies. The uptrend in grains and beans remains intact. Chart 8 Chart 9   Footnotes 1     Please see Renewables, China's FYP Underpin Metals Demand, published 26 November 2020, for further discussion.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2     Please see Global Energy Review 2021, the IEA's Flagship report for April 2021. 3    Please see Renewables, China's FYP Underpin Metals Demand, published 26 November 2020, for further discussion.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4    We discussed these capex issues in last week's research, Copper Headed Higher On Surge In Steel Prices, which is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5    Please see Valenta et al.’s ‘Re-thinking complex orebodies: Consequences for the future world supply of copper’ published in 2019 for this analysis. 6    Please see Calvo et. al.’s ‘Decreasing Ore Grades in Global Metallic Mining: A Theoretical Issue or a Global Reality?’ published in 2016 for this analysis. 7     Please see Azadi et. al.’s ‘Transparency on greenhouse gas emissions from mining to enable climate change mitigation’ published in 2020 for this analysis. 8    Please see John Kemp's Column: CO2 emission limits and economic development published 19 April 2021 by reuters.com.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights Higher copper prices will follow in the wake of China's surge in steel demand, which lifted Shanghai steel futures to an all-time high just under 5,200 RMB/MT earlier this month, as building and infrastructure projects are completed this year (Chart of the Week). Copper will register physical deficits this year and next, which will pull inventories even lower and will push demand for copper scrap up in China and globally. High and rising copper prices could prompt government officials to release some of China's massive state holdings of copper – believed to total some 2mm MT – if the current round of market jawboning fails to restrain demand and price increases. Strong steel margins and another round of environmental restraints on mills are boosting demand for high-grade iron ore (65% Fe), which hit a record high of just under $223/MT earlier this week. Benchmark iron ore prices (62% Fe) traded at 10-year highs this week, just a touch below $190/MT. We are lifting our copper price forecast for December 2021 to $5.00/lb from $4.50/lb. In addition, we are getting long 2022 CME/COMEX copper vs short 2023 CME/COMEX copper at tonight's close, expecting steeper backwardation. Feature Government-mandated reductions of up to 30% in steel mill operations for the rest of the year in China's Tangshan steel hub to reduce pollution will tighten an already-tight market responding to a construction and infrastructure boom (Chart 2). This boom triggered a surge in steel prices, and, perforce, in iron ore prices (Chart 3). As it has in the past, this sets the stage for the next leg of copper's bull run. Chart of the WeekSurging Steel Presages Stronger Copper Prices In our modeling, we have found a strong relationship between steel prices, particularly for reinforcing bar (rebar), and copper prices, as can be seen in the Chart of the Week. Steel goes into building and infrastructure projects at the front end (in the concrete that is reinforced by steel and in rolled coil products), and then copper goes into the completed project (in the form of wires or pipes). Chart 2Copper Bull Market Will Continue In addition to the building and construction boom, continued gains in manufacturing will provide a tailwind for copper prices, which will be augmented by the global recovery in activity 2H21. Chart 4 shows the relationship between nominal GDP levels and copper prices. What's important here is economic growth in Asia (including China) and ex-Asia is, unsurprisingly, cointegrated with copper prices – i.e., economic growth and industrial commodities share a long-term equilibrium, which explains their co-movement. Chart 3Steel Boom Lifts Iron Ore Prices Media reports tend to focus on the effects of Chinese government spending as a share of GDP – e.g., total social financing relative to GDP – to the exclusion of the economic, particularly when trying to explain commodity price movements. To the extent the Chinese government is successful in further expanding the private sector – on the goods and services sides – organic economic growth will become even more important in explaining Chinese commodity demand. Chart 4Global Economic Grwoth Will Boost Copper Prices In our copper modeling, we find copper prices to be cointegrated with nominal Chinese GDP, EM Asian GDP and EM ex-Asian GDP, along with steel and iron ore prices, which, from a pure economics point of view, is what would be expected. On the other hand, there is no cointegration – i.e., no economic co-movement or a shared trend – between these industrial commodity prices and total social financing as a percent of nominal China GDP. These models allow us to avoid spurious relationships, which offer no help in explaining or forecasting these copper prices. Chart 5Iron Ore, Copper Demand Will Lift With The "Green Energy" Buildout Chart 6Renewables Dominate Incremental New Generation Longer term, as we have written in past research reports, the transition to a low-carbon energy mix favoring distributed renewable electricity generation, more resilient grids and electric vehicles (EVs) will be a major source of demand growth for bulks like iron ore and steel, and base metals, particularly copper (Chart 5).1 Already, renewable generation represents the highest-growth segment of incremental power generation being added to the global grid (Chart 6). Copper Supply Growth Requires Higher Prices Copper supply will have a difficult time accommodating demand in the short term (to end-2022) when, for the most part, the buildout in renewables and EVs will only be getting started. This means that over the medium (to end-2025) and the long terms (2050) significant new supply will have to be developed to meet demand. In the short term, the supply side of refined copper – particularly the semi-refined form of the metal smelters purify into a useable input for manufactured products (condensates) – is running extremely low, as can be seen in the longer-term collapse of Treatment Charges and Refining Charges (TC/RC) at Chinese smelters (Chart 7). At ~ $22/MT last week, these charges were the lowest since the benchmark TC/RC index tracking these charges in China was launched in 2013, according to reuters.com.2 Chart 7Copper TCRCs Fall As Supplies Fall, Pushing Prices Higher The copper supply story also can be seen in Chart 8, which converts annual supply and demand into balances, which will be mediated by the storage market. The International Copper Study Group (ICSG) estimates mine output again registered flat year-on-year growth last year, while refined copper supplies were up a scant 1.5% y/y. Chart 8Physical Deficits Will Draw Copper Stocks... Consumption was up 2.2%, according to the ICSG's estimates, which expects a physical deficit this year of 456k MT, after adjusting for Chinese bonded warehouse stocks. This will mark the fourth year in a row the copper market has been in a physical deficit, which, since 2017, has averaged 414k MT. The net result of this means inventories will once again be relied on to fill in supply gaps, and global stockpiles, which are down ~25% y/y, and will continue to fall (Chart 9). With mining capex weak and copper ore quality falling, higher prices will be required to incentivize significant new investment in production (Chart 10). However, the lead time on these projects is five years in the best of circumstances, which means miners have to get projects sanctioned with final investment decisions made in the near future (Chart 11). Chart 9...Which After Four Years Of Physical Deficits Are Low Chart 10Higher Copper Prices Required To Reverse Weak Capex, Falling Ore Quality Chart 11Falling Lead Times To Bring New Mines Online, But Time Is Short Investment Implications Our focus on copper is driven by the simple fact that it spans all renewable technologies and will be critical for EVs as well, particularly if there is widespread adoption of this technology (Chart 12). We continue to expect copper supply challenges across the short-, medium- and long-term investment horizons. To cover the short term, we recommended going long December 2021 copper on 10 September 2020, and this position is up 39.2%. To cover the longer term, we are long the S&P Global GSCI commodity index and the iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF (COMT), recommended 7 December 2017 and 12 March 2021 , respectively, which are down 2.3% and 0.8%. Chart 12Widespread EV Uptake Will Create All New Copper Demand At tonight's close, we will cover the medium-term opportunity of the copper supply-demand story developed above by getting long the 2022 CME/COMEX copper futures strip and short 2023 CME/COMEX copper futures strip, given our expectation the continued tightening of the market will force inventories to draw, leading to a steeper backwardation in the copper forward curve. The principal risks to our short-, medium- and long-term positions above are a global failure to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, which, we believe is a short-term risk. Second among the risks to these positions is a large release of strategic copper concentrate reserves held by China's State Reserve Bureau (aka, the State Bureau of Minerial Reserves). In the case of the latter risk, the actual holdings of the Bureau are unknown, but are believed to be in the neighborhood of 2mm MT.3 Bottom Line: We remain bullish industrial commodities, particularly copper. Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish Texas is expected to add 10 GW of utility-scale solar power by the end of 2022, according to the US EIA. Texas entered the solar market in a big way in 2020, installing 2.5 GW of capacity. The EIA expects The Great State to add ~ 5GW per year in the next two years, which would take total solar capacity to just under 15 GW. Roughly 30% of this new capacity is expected to be built in the Permian Basin, home to the most prolific oil field in the US. By comparison, the leading producer of solar power in the US, California, will add 3.2 GW of new solar capacity, according to the EIA (Chart 13). To end-2022, roughly one-third of total new solar generation in the will be added in Texas, which already is the leading wind-powered generator in the country. Wind availability is highest during the nighttime hours, while solar is most abundant during the mid-day period. Precious Metals: Bullish Palladium prices, trading ~ $2,876/oz on Wednesday, surpassed their previous record of $2,875.50/oz set in February 2020 and are closing in on $3,000/oz, as supply expectations continue to be lowered by Russian metals producer Nornickel, the largest palladium producer in the world (Chart 14). Earlier this week, the company updated earlier guidance and now expects mine output to be down as much as 20% this year in its copper, nickel and palladium operations, due to flooding in its mines. Palladium is used as a catalyst in gasoline-powered automobiles, sales of which are expected to rebound as the world emerges from COVID-19-induced demand destruction and a computer-chip shortage that has limited new automobile supply. In addition, production of platinum-group metals (PGMs) is being hampered by unreliable power supply in South Africa, which has forced the national utility suppling most of the state's power (> 90%) to revert to load-shedding schemes to conserve power. We remain long palladium, after recommending a long position in the metal 23 April 2020; the position is up 35.6%. Chart 13 Chart 14     Footnotes 1     Please see, e.g., Renewables, China's FYP Underpin Metals Demand, which we published 26 November 2020.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com.   2     Please see RPT-COLUMN-Copper smelter terms at rock bottom as mine squeeze hits: Andy Home published by reuters.com 14 April 2021.  The report notes direct transactions between miners and smelters were reported as low as $10/MT, in a sign of just how tight the physical supply side of the copper market is at present. 3    Please see Column: Supercycle or China cycle? Funds wait for Dr Copper's call, published by reuters.com 20 April 2021.    Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

Special Report

Dear client, Next week, in lieu of our weekly report, I will be hosting a webcast on Tuesday, March 30 at 9:00 am HKT and Tuesday, March 30 at 10:00 am EDT. In the webcast, I will share our outlook on China’s post-pandemic economic and policy dynamics. Best regards, Jing Sima, China Strategist   Highlights China is aiming for a massive adoption of new energy vehicles (NEVs) to help achieve its 2030 peak carbon dioxide emissions target. The country’s NEV share of total vehicle sales will likely rise significantly to 40% in 2030, from only 5.4% in 2020. This will translate into a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 24%-25% in Chinese NEV sales in this decade. China will become increasingly competitive and important in the global NEV supply chain. The country will maintain its leading position in global electric vehicle battery production while reducing its dependence on imported auto chips.   The Chinese NEV production/sales boom will likely reduce the country’s crude oil consumption while increasing the country’s copper demand during 2021-2030. It will also impact more positively on nickel and lithium demand than on cobalt demand. The Chinese NEV stocks could be a good long-term investment, but we recommend waiting for a better entry point. Feature China's production and sales of new energy vehicles (NEVs) have ranked first in the world for six consecutive years. The country’s NEV sales quadrupled during 2015-2020, propelled by supporting policies such as significant amounts of subsidies to buyers.  We believe China will continue to be the leader in both global NEV sales and production this decade. The country’s NEV production and sales will get supercharged by continuing favorable polices and increasing consumers’ interest in NEVs. Many market-driven factors, including falling NEV prices, longer driving range per charge, rapid expansion in the NEV charging/battery-swapping network, as well as new functions including autonomous driving and more software applications-based services, will accelerate NEV adoption in China during 2021-2030. According to the country’s NEV development roadmap, the NEV share of total vehicle sales in China aims to rise to at least 40% in 2030, from only 5.4% in 2020. This will likely translate to a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 24%-25% in Chinese NEV sales in this decade. In 2030, the NEV sales in units could be eight to nine times its 2020 level, rising from 1.37 million units to 12-13 million units (Chart 1). Benefiting from the massive scale of the domestic NEV market, China will become increasingly competitive and important in the global NEV supply chain. The country will maintain its leading position in global electric vehicle battery production while reducing its dependence on imported auto chips. The Chinese NEV production/sales boom will help reduce transportation fuel consumption, leading to less carbon dioxide emissions (Chart 2).  Chart 1Chinese NEV Sales: A Supercharged Decade Ahead Chart 2China: Booming NEV Sales Reduce Oil Demand, Leading To Less CO2 Emissions In addition, the country’s copper demand will likely be increase due to booming NEV production during 2021-2030. Meanwhile, the impact will be more positive on nickel and lithium demand than on cobalt demand. Given such  significant growth ahead for the Chinese NEV market, we believe Chinese NEV-related stocks are a potential good buy, but we recommend waiting for a better entry point.   China’s NEV Market: A Supercharged Decade Chinese NEV market is entering a supercharged decade (Box 1). Box 1 Our Forecast Of China’s NEV Sales In 2030 Our estimates of China’s NEV sales in 2030 were derived from two assumptions. First, we assume the NEV share of total Chinese automobile sales in 2030 to be 40%. Based on last October’s report, “Technology Roadmap 2.0 for Energy-Saving and New Energy Vehicles,” published by the China Society of Automotive Engineers (China-SAE), the China-SAE projects that NEVs will account for at least 40% of total automobile sales in China in 2030. The China-SAE is under the supervision of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT). Second, as car ownership – the share of households owning one car – has already risen to over 50% in China, we assume the CAGR of the country’s automobile sales will slow to 1.5%-2.5% in the next decade from 3.4% in the past decade. Based on this assumption, China’s automobile annual sales will likely increase to 29-32 million units in 2030. What Are The Underlying Drivers For Such Significant Growth? First, the interest in buying a NEV is rapidly growing in China. In a September 2020 survey done by Roland Berger, 80% of surveyed potential car buyers in China were considering buying an electric vehicle as their next car, the highest among major economies (Chart 3). Last year, this surveyed number for China was only 60%. We believe this shift in buying intention will continue and will consequently translate into a boom in NEV sales during 2021-2030. NEV battery costs have decreased by nearly 90% since 2010 and will continue to fall (Chart 4). This will drive down average NEV selling prices as the battery in general accounts 40-45% of the total production cost of NEVs, thereby making them more appealing to buyers. Chart 3China: Rising Interest In NEV Purchases Chart 4NEV Battery Costs Will Continue To Fall The average driving range per charge for NEVs will continue to rise. The average driving mileage per charge in China has nearly doubled, from 190km in 2016 to 360km in 2019.1 Currently, a growing proportion of NEV vehicles on the market can even achieve a mileage of 600km and above with a single charge. This is already comparable to traditional gasoline-powered vehicles, which can also cover approximately 600km per fuel tank.  More models with a wide range of selling prices will soon be on the market. Last June, the cheapest electric car with a selling price of only RMB 28,800 (about US$4,000) was released into the Chinese market. Since then the sales of this model have quickly surpassed the Tesla Model 3 to become the hottest seller in China. This shows consumer enthusiasm for affordable NEVs. In the meantime, the success of Tesla electric cars in China demonstrated Chinese consumers’ strong interest in high-quality and expensive NEVs. Chart 5China Has The Most NEV Models In The World Chart 5 shows that China is the country with most electric vehicle models in the world. The number of available electric vehicle models  was 227 in China in 2019, significantly higher than all other individual countries. According to McKinsey, more than 250 new battery electric vehicle (BEV) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) models will be introduced in the next two years alone. Most of these models will likely be sold in China, adding more purchase options for Chinese consumers. Faster charging time for EV batteries as well as expanding charging/battery-swapping networks are in the making. This will greatly reduce recharge waiting time for NEV drivers. Chart 6Chinese NEV Charging Infrastructure: The Rapid Expansion Will Continue Based on the data from the China Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Promotion Alliance (EVCIPA), the number of both public and private charging poles has increased significantly from 2015 to 2020. In addition,  the number of private ones has already exceeded the number of public ones each year since 2017 (Chart 6). The rapid expansion in the country’s charging station network will continue. The number of total charging poles will likely rise from 1.7 million units to the government’s target of 5 million units in 2025. In addition, Wood Mackenzie last May forecasted this number could reach 9.8 million units in 2030. Roland Berger last September reported that the number of charging locations per 100 km of roadway was about 6.1 in China, significantly higher than 2.2 in Germany and 0.5 in the US (Chart 7). In terms of the number of charging stations per 1000 NEVs, China has also significantly exceeded other major automobile producing countries (Chart 8). Chart 7The Number Of Charging Locations Per 100 km Of Roadway Is Higher In China Than In Many Other Countries… Chart 8…The Same Is True Of The Number Of Charging Stations Per 1,000 NEVs Meanwhile, the Chinese government is also promoting an expansion of battery-swapping networks. The Chinese auto manufacturer Nio has been the leader in this area. The company currently has a network of 178 battery-swapping stations located in and between major cities such as Beijing and Shenzhen; by the end of the year, it plans to have 500 stations. The battery-swapping time for the Nio EV now can be as fast as 90 seconds, even faster than fueling up with gasoline. EVs will become increasingly equipped with functions such as autonomous driving and more software applications-based services. EVs will also become more integrated with intelligent and interactive networks. All these features will make EVs more attractive to automobile buyers.  Second, with the 2030 target for peak emissions, the Chinese authorities will likely continue to develop favorable polices for the domestic NEV sector. China’s key policy support tools for NEVs include tax reductions, direct subsidies to manufacturers, consumer subsidies, and mandated government procurements. In the past, China has provided immense support for NEVs by spending billions of dollars on direct subsidies to manufacturers2 and on consumer subsidy programs.3 In the future, the country’s policy focus will be on NEV charging/battery-swapping network development as well as on NEV-related technology research and investment. For example, since 2019, auto manufacturers have received credits for each NEV produced. The credits take into consideration factors such as the type of vehicle, as well as its maximum speed, energy consumption, weight, and range. This measure will encourage NEV automakers to put more emphasis on technological change. These government supports of technology and network development, coupled with strong interest in NEV purchases by domestic consumers, should offset the impact of the government’s reduced direct subsidies for NEV production and sales. China has reduced overall direct subsidies to both NEV manufacturers and consumers, and vehicles must meet minimum technical and performance criteria to qualify. In 2021, subsidies will be reduced by 20% on NEVs for personal use, and by 10% on NEVs for public transport, including buses and taxis, from their respective 2020 level. In addition, NEV subsidies and tax exemptions will expire at the end of 2022 and subsidies will be limited to 2 million NEVs per year from 2020 to 2022. A vehicle price limit for passenger cars of CNY300,000 has also been introduced. The NEV subsidy level is currently less in China than in European countries as well as in the US, showing the Chinese NEV market’s diminishing dependence on subsidies. Bottom Line: The country’s NEV production and sales will get supercharged by continuing favorable polices and by increasing consumer interest in NEVs during 2021-2030. We expect China’s NEV sales to reach 12 to 13 million units in 2030, eight to nine times its 2020 level of 1.37 million units. Growing China’s Competitiveness In The Global NEV Supply Chain The global NEV market has two main subsectors – plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) and battery electric vehicles (BEV). The former can be operated in either the electric-powered mode or internal-combustion engines (ICE) mode. The BEVs can only run in electric mode and are also called pure electric vehicles. Traditional ICE vehicle manufacturers from Europe, US, Japan, and South Korea have more competitive advantages in the global PHEV subsector supply chain due to their long-term dominance in the global traditional ICE vehicle market. Chart 9BEVs Account For Over 80% Of Chinese NEV Sales China has been putting more focus on the new BEV market as it has enabled a level playing field with traditional ICE vehicle players. Hence, China has stronger competitiveness in the global BEV subsector. BEVs account for approximately 82% of Chinese NEV sales (Chart 9). According to China-SAE, this ratio could reach 95% by 2035 as China will increase its development of the BEV market and the adoption of BEV vehicle options.   We expect China’s competitiveness will continue to grow along the global NEV supply chain, especially in the BEV subsector. Having the largest domestic NEV market in the world gives China the advantage of attracting NEV manufacturers and building a more integrated global supply chain. During 2017-2020, accumulated world NEV sales were about 8.8 million units, with the largest share of 49% coming from China, higher than 31% for Europe and 14% for the US (Chart 10).   China is the largest NEV battery producer in the global NEV supply chain. The battery is the most important component of a NEV, and its technological progress holds the key to transitioning away from fossil fuel dependence. Data shows that six out of the world’s top ten NEV battery producers are Chinese companies, together accounting for 41% of global battery sales in kwh last year (Chart 11). Chinese company CATL has been the largest NEV battery producer for the past four years. Chart 10China Has The Largest NEV Market In The World Chart 11Chinese Companies: Major Players In The Global NEV Battery Market The development of charging/battery-swapping infrastructure will continue to be faster in China than in other countries/regions due to the country’s much larger scale of EV users and related policy support. This allows China to collect more NEV charging-related data, which may be used to improve the country’s NEV manufacturing process, charging pole production, and the country’s charging infrastructure development.  The development of the 5G network is much more advanced in China than in any other countries. This allows NEV makers to work closely with IT/internet companies such as Huawei, Baidu, Tencent and Alibaba to test integrated applications such as the autonomous driving and AI functions of NEVs. This will help promote the technology advancement related to NEVs in all aspects in China. Chart 12Chinas NEV Net Exports Are Set To Go Up Due to its competitive advantages, China has become a net exporter of electric vehicles (Chart 12). In 2019, Chinese NEV sales abroad accounted for only 1.7% of the world total in US dollar terms, far below the US (31%), Germany (15%), and South Korea (9%). We expect growing competitiveness will allow China to gain share in global NEV exports. The area China needs to work on the most along the NEV supply chain is the design/manufacturing of automotive chips. There is still no Chinese company among the top ten global auto chip semiconductor companies based on sales revenue (Chart 13). Chart 13China’s Greatest Weaknesses Lie In Automotive Chip Design/Manufacturing Non-Chinese companies account for about 90% of the global auto chip supply while China contributes no more than 5%. The current automotive chip shortage has done much more severe damage to automakers in China than in any other country. Bloomberg recently reported the global auto industry might lose US$61 billion of 2021 sales from chip shortages, with 42% of the losses from China. In the recent National People’s Congress, the Chinese government reiterated the importance of addressing this weak link, with an urgency on reducing the country’s dependence on foreign auto chips. Bottom Line: China will become globally more competitive in the NEV supply chain. Impact On Commodity Markets The evolution in China’s NEV markets in this decade will have various impacts on commodities such as crude oil, copper, nickel, cobalt, and lithium. During 2021-2030, massive NEV adoption will only modestly reduce Chinese crude oil consumption for the transportation sector, while significant growth in NEV/charging pole/battery production will increase the country’s copper demand. Meanwhile, as NEV battery production requires raw materials including nickel, cobalt and lithium, rapid growth in NEV battery production will also have different impacts on these commodity markets.    Crude oil: In 2019, the total number of vehicles in China was 252.6 million units and the country’s total gasoline and diesel consumption was about 6,800 thousand barrels per day (kbpd) of crude oil equivalent. This equals 26.7 kbpd per 1000 vehicles. Annual NEV sales in China will rise from 1.37 million units in 2020 to about 12 million units in 2030. Assuming all these NEVs are only using their electric battery, this will cut oil consumption/imports by an increasing amount every year, ranging from 50 kbpd in 2021 to 320 kbpd in 2030. The reduction from increased NEV sales will have a relatively minuscule impact on China’s total crude oil imports. A 50-kbpd reduction in 2021 would account for less than half a percent of China’s 2020 crude oil imports. By 2030, this number could potentially rise to 1-3%, but is still insignificant. Copper: An average gasoline powered car uses only about 20kg of copper, while a hybrid car uses about 40 kg and a fully electric car uses roughly 80kg. In addition, NEV batteries and charging station chargers also require copper. Table 1 shows our rough calculation of the copper demand from the expansion of Chinese NEV market. Chinese copper demand may increase by 210 thousand tons in 2021 and by about 1,500 thousand tons in 2030. To put this into perspective, China consumed about 15 million tons of copper in 2020 based on World Bureau of Metal Statistics (WBMS) data. The increase in copper demand in 2021 is only 1.4% of 2020 copper consumption in China. However, when it increases to 1,500 thousand tons in 2030, it will account for 10% of China’s current copper consumption. Table 1China's Copper Demand Due To EV Adoption In 2021 And 2030 Chart 14Chinas NEV Boom Will Have A More Positive Impact On Nickel And Lithium Demand Than On Cobalt Demand Nickel: The NEV battery technology is on a trend to reduce the use of cobalt given its high price and limited supply, while increasing the use of nickel. This will be a long-term positive factor for nickel prices (Chart 14, top panel). Cobalt: EV battery makers are trying to reduce or even avoid the use of cobalt. In the next couple of years, the demand for cobalt will likely remain strong as the technology of non-cobalt batteries is still in the developing stage. Non-cobalt batteries in development include solid-state , lithium-sulphur, sodium-ion and lithium-air batteries. However, cobalt prices may face increasing headwinds in the longer term (Chart 14, middle panel). Lithium: Lithium is a very abundant mineral produced from either brines or hard rock sources, with products from clays also in the pipeline. There is no structural constraint on global lithium production. Lithium prices may remain elevated in the near term but as the supply catches up over a longer run, we expect lithium prices to go down (Chart 14, bottom panel). Bottom Line: The massive growth in the Chinese NEV market in this decade will have a small negative impact on crude oil demand and a more positive impact on commodity demand such as copper, nickel, cobalt, and lithium. However, cobalt may face a substitution risk due to its elevated prices while lithium may face the risk of increasing supply. Investment Implications On NEV-related Stocks Chart 15The Chinese NEV stocks: A Good Long-term Investment, But We Recommend Waiting For A Better Entry Point We believe share prices of the Chinese NEV makers and NEV battery producers will deliver considerable positive long-term returns. The basis for this assumption is that many of them will experience strong revenue growth over this decade. While NEV maker stock prices have recently fallen considerably, we think they are still overpriced and recommend waiting for a better entry point (Chart 15).    Ellen JingYuan He     Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1Source: “Technology Roadmap 2.0 for Energy-Saving and New Energy Vehicles,” released on October 27, 2020 by the China Society of Automotive Engineers (China-SAE). 2For example, as part of China’s 2012 “Energy-Saving and New Energy Vehicle Industry Development Plan (2012–2020),” the central government allocated over $15 billion to support the development of energy-efficient vehicles and NEVs, pilot car projects, and electric vehicle infrastructure. Source: "Chinese Government Support for New Energy Vehicles as a Trade Battleground", published by The National Bureau of Asian Research" on September 27, 2017. 3For example, the central government had provided 60,000 yuan (approximately $8,700) and 50,000 yuan (approximately $7,250) per car in subsidies for electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid vehicles, respectively, covering 40%–60% of the cost of the vehicle. Local governments also created their own subsidy programs that provided additional discounts for NEV purchases through cash subsidies, free parking, or free license plates. Source: "Chinese Government Support for New Energy Vehicles as a Trade Battleground", published by The National Bureau of Asian Research" on September 27, 2017. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Special Report

Highlights Given that rising crop yields have been the main vehicle through which global supply of agricultural commodities grew to meet expanding demand, the risks posed to yields due to climate change are non-trivial. The impact of climate change will manifest itself in the form of two simultaneous trends: the gradual rise in temperatures alongside more frequent and severe weather events. While the latter will threaten immediate supply, the former is a slower moving process, and its net negative impact is unlikely to manifest before 2030. The implications of climate change on agriculture producers are non-uniform. Low-latitude countries with economies that are highly dependent on the agriculture sector will suffer most. Expect greater volatility in agriculture prices as the frequency of weather events will raise uncertainty. Feature The steady expansion of global population and rising per-capita calorie consumption has directly translated to growing demand for agricultural products of all types. However, these demand-side pressures increasingly will be met with disruptions to global supply of agricultural commodities, as the impact of climate change raises uncertainty. In any given year, the aggregate decisions of farmers all over the world – i.e., the choice of which crops to plant and how much acreage to dedicate to each crop – determine the supply and market prices of ags. In this competitive market, each farmer attempts to maximize his or her welfare by planting the crops that are expected to yield the greatest profit. Chart 12010/11 Shock Highlights Ag Vulnerability To Weather The collective action of these producers in reaction to perceived demand generally leads to stable prices, especially for staple commodities such as grains and oilseeds, which differ from industrial commodities in that they are not highly correlated with global business cycles. Demand trends are long-term and slow moving, and typically do not result in abrupt price pressures, as farmers have time to adjust and adapt to changing consumer preferences. Unforeseen, weather-induced supply-side shocks, therefore, are the main source of sudden price changes in ag markets. Such a shock was dramatically on display during the drought-induced crop failures in major grain and cereal producing regions in the most recent global food crisis of 2010/11. While this massive supply shock was not the first of its kind (Chart 1, on page 1), it highlighted the vulnerability of ag markets to weather risks and specifically the evolving environment under climate change. A 2019 study quantifies the impact of shifting weather patterns on the agricultural market, finding that year-to-year changes in climate factors during the growing season explain 20%-49% of change in corn, rice, soybean, and wheat yields, with climate extremes accounting for 18%-43% of this variation.1 In theory, the impact can manifest in several ways, sometimes contradictory: Extreme weather events: An increase in the frequency and intensity of droughts or floods which threaten to wipe out crops or reduce yields, creating unpredictable supply shocks. The gradual rise in temperature: Each crop has cardinal temperatures – defined by the minimum, maximum and optimum – that determine its boundaries for growth. Increases in temperatures induced by global warming may push the boundary, reducing yields in some regions. Changes in precipitation patterns: In many areas precipitation is projected to increase – both in short bursts and over longer periods. This will lead to greater soil erosion resulting in deterioration in the quality of soil. In other regions, precipitation will decrease, and drought is expected to become more frequent.2 Moreover, the interaction of these factors – along with other region-specific variables – will amplify the impact on crops: Rising temperatures and greater precipitation will result in greater amounts of water in the atmosphere, producing increased water vapor and greater cloud cover. This will reduce solar radiation, and will harm crop productivity. Elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide and CO2 fertilization: Greater CO2 concentrations brought on by continued growth in air pollution are positive for crops as they stimulate photosynthesis and plant growth. However, the impact differs across crops with plants such as soybeans, rice and wheat set to benefit relatively more than plants such as corn.3 Moreover, elevated atmospheric CO2 levels can help crops respond to environmental stresses and reduce yield losses due to ozone and crop water loss through partial stomatal closure and a reduction in ozone penetration into leaves. Temperature changes and the magnitude and intensity of precipitation impact soil moisture and surface runoff. Indirect effects of climate change – weeds, pests and pathogens – also present challenges as they require changes to management practices and may raise farming costs required. The impact of climate change on agriculture markets is already evident in increasing intensity and frequency of extreme weather events. The confluence of these factors, and the region- and crop-specific nature of these variables, makes it impossible to estimate the impact of evolving climate conditions on ag products with great accuracy. Nevertheless, our research suggests that the impact of climate change on ag markets will create opportunities in this evolving and highly uncertain market. Abrupt Shocks Amid Gradual Warming: The Long And Short View The impact of climate change on agriculture markets is already evident in the increasing intensity and frequency of extreme-weather events such as heatwaves, floods, and droughts. Charts 2A, 2B, and 2C, illustrate the impact of major weather events in crop-producing regions of the U.S. on yields, production and acreage for the crop year in which the events took place. Chart 2AExtreme Weather Events Reduce U.S. Corn Supplies … Chart 2B… Soybean Supplies … Chart 2C… And Wheat Supplies In A Big Way Chart 3Climate-Induced U.S. Supply Shocks Associated With Price Spikes   While the individual losses are a function of the magnitude of the event, the events highlighted translate to a 16%, 10%, and 7% decline in corn, soybean, and wheat yields, respectively. These supply disruptions generally do not extend beyond the event year, as the new crop year offers farmers a clean slate to raise output and maximize profits. Given that the U.S. is a major global supplier of these crops, extreme weather events and the subsequent supply reductions lead to non-negligible price pressures (Chart 3). While crop conditions thus far have failed to deteriorate in trend (Chart 4), greater frequency and intensity of weather events raise the probability of a decline in overall crop and could lower supply.   Chart 4Crop Conditions Have Generally Held Up Expanding the analysis to other major crop-producing regions of the world, we find that once again, extreme-weather events are associated with a decline in yields and production in the corresponding crop year (Chart 5). This exercise also indicates that the impact of droughts is significantly more pronounced than the impact of floods.4 While the weather-induced supply shocks described above are unpredictable, abrupt, and have an immediate impact on output and prices, the gradual warming of temperatures is a slow-moving process. Consequently, the impact will manifest in the form of gradual changes that are difficult to capture and quantify, especially given the mitigating effect of CO2 fertilization – i.e., higher yields resulting from higher CO2 in the atmosphere. Nonetheless, rising temperatures will become a serious risk in crop-planting regions both in the U.S. and globally (Chart 6). While rising temperatures are expected to bring about increasingly more wide-ranging supply disruptions (Chart 7), the net impact over the coming decade is not a clear negative. Chart 5Weather Events, Especially Droughts, Hurt Global Supplies Chart 6Rising Global Temperatures Will Pose A Serious Risk … Chart 7… Especially Above The 2°C Mark One study expects the positive impact of CO2 fertilization on yields to overwhelm the negative effect of rising temperatures over the coming decade (Table 1). Elsewhere, studies forecast different responses, with some predicting incremental yield gains over the coming decade before temperatures rise to levels that overwhelm the benefits of greater CO2. Similarly, according to the FAO’s assessment, the net negative impact of climate change on global crop yields will only become apparent with a high degree of certainty post-2030.5 Table 1Estimates For The Response Of Global Average Crop Yields To Warming And CO2 Changes Over The Next Decades Bottom Line: Given that rising crop yields have been the main vehicle through which global ag supply grew to meet expanding demand, the risks posed to yields due to climate change are non-trivial. Supply disruptions generally do not extend beyond the event year, as the new crop year offers farmers a clean slate to raise output and maximize profits. The impact will manifest itself in the form of two simultaneous trends: the gradual rise in temperatures alongside more frequent and severe weather events. While the latter will threaten immediate supply, the former is a slower moving process, and its net negative impact is unlikely to manifest before 2030. The Winners … And Losers Rising temperatures are expected to result in a negligible impact on ag markets over the coming decade; yet this finding is not uniform across all regions. The FAO study cited above finds that by 2030, the projected impact on crop yields will be slightly net negative in developing countries. However, in developed countries, the effect will be net positive. In terms of global supply, the impact of climate change over the coming decade is expected to remain relatively contained, affecting certain regions at various times without causing major global disruptions. That said, as global warming and extreme weather persist, the ramifications will begin to extend beyond individual regions, and will cause supply shocks on a global scale. In part, this can be explained by a greater potential for net reductions in crop yields in warmer, low-latitude areas and semi-arid regions of the world.6 This non-uniform impact will create relative winners and losers. Producers located in temperate regions – where climate change does not yet pose as serious a threat – are set to profit from their increased role in global supply. Conversely, tropical regions are much more vulnerable to climate change. This is especially true for those whose economies are highly dependent on agriculture (Chart 8). Chart 8Agricultural Economies In Tropical Regions Are Most Vulnerable On net, the overall economies of DM countries – which generally are not economically dependent on agriculture and are located in northern regions – will be relatively more insulated from the impact of climate change on the agriculture sector. Aside from the impact on producers, the implications on consumers are also region-dependent. Clearly the direct impact of climate change on global agriculture will be higher food prices, which directly impacts the food component of inflation generally. As a result, consumers who spend a large share of their income to food – generally consumers in lower income countries – will be hardest hit (Chart 9). Chart 9Higher Food Prices Disproportionately Hurt Consumers In Lower Income Countries In theory, a food supply shock is transitory, and given that food is usually excluded from core inflation gauges targeted by central banks, monetary policy should not react to these price spikes. All the same, aside from this direct impact on inflation, food inflation can also pass-through into other components of the CPI basket, for example through wage pressures or inflation expectations. This would lead to a more persistent impact on core inflation, forcing policy makers to react to these transitory forces, complicating the monetary policy response function for these countries. Given that inflation expectations are less well-anchored in lower income economies and that food makes up a larger share of consumption expenditures in these economies, they are most vulnerable to weather-induced food shocks. Chart 10Subsidies Partially Insulate Against International Shocks In countries where food prices are highly subsidized, the impact of higher global food prices will not immediately translate to higher domestic prices. This explains why there is no one-to-one relationship between global food prices and domestic food prices (Chart 10). Instead, the higher prices are absorbed by the governments, resulting in an expansion in government expenditures. This distorts the local food market, as it prevents demand from adjusting to the higher prices, and could potentially result in an undershoot in inventories that makes global markets even more vulnerable to further supply shocks. Bottom Line: The implications of climate change on ag producers are non-uniform. While higher-latitude regions are set to benefit, at least in the short-run, low-latitude countries with economies that are highly dependent on the agriculture sector will suffer most. On the consumer side, individuals who spend a large share of their income on food are set to suffer most. While consumers in countries that subsidize the crops will be protected from the immediate inflation risk, they may feel a delayed impact due to an increase in budget expenditures needed to cover the larger import bill. Mitigation Efforts While the potential impact of climate change on the agriculture sector can be large, it will be at least partially managed through adoption of mitigation policies (Diagram 1). Diagram 1Adaptation Reduces Vulnerability A key question in determining the extent of this behavior is whether warming temperatures and the increased occurrence and intensity of extreme events will be sufficient to justify a major acceleration of investment in agriculture. These efforts would range from simple management changes on the part of farmers to technological advances that raise the productivity of farming or reduce the vulnerability of farmers to climate change. For example, farmers across the U.S. have been planting corn and soybeans earlier in the spring, resulting in an advancement in planting dates (Chart 11). The earlier planting has also been accompanied by a longer growing season with the average number of days in the season increasing. Farmers are also adapting by altering their decisions on which crops to plant. For example, since soybean and corn are planted in many of the same regions of the U.S., farmers often plant more soybeans than corn when experiencing weather shocks. Chart 11Weather Events, Especially Droughts, Hurt Global Supplies The agriculture sector is also using more efficient machinery that can plant and harvest crops much faster as well as developing heartier seeds and more potent fertilizers. In turn, farmers will alter their decision making by selecting crop varieties or species that are more resistant to heat and drought. Or they will change fertilizer rates, amounts and timing of irrigation, along with other water-management techniques. Farmers also are making wider use of integrated pest and pathogen management techniques, in order to raise the effectiveness of pest, disease, and weed control. Given that the number of firms in the agriculture sector are fewer in developed markets than in the rest of the world, management decisions can be more easily implemented in the former. Farmers across the U.S. have been planting corn and soybeans earlier in the spring, resulting in an advancement in planting dates. On the other hand, emerging market countries where ag output is driven by numerous individual farmers will have a more difficult time implementing policies. Individual farms may not have the means to support themselves, which raises the potential impact of climate change. What is more, climate-change mitigation efforts may require projects, programs, or funds set aside by the government to support these efforts. This is more likely to occur in wealthier developed countries. Bottom Line: Adaptation and mitigation measures on the part of farmers have the potential to reduce the impact of climate change. That said, farmers in richer countries with the funds and institutions in place to support the ag sector likely will fare better. Investment Implications Over the coming decade, the ramifications of climate change are likely to be contained to a regional level. Although global supply will be vulnerable to regional disruptions, the impact will, in part, be mitigated by inventories, which have been rising for years. These stocks will create a buffer against unpredictable supply shocks (Chart 12). Chart 12Higher Inventories Needed To Buffer Against Unpredictable Shocks However, given that the global soybean market resembles an oligopoly with Brazil, the U.S., and Argentina accounting for 81% of global supply, global soybean prices will be more vulnerable to supply events in these regions than other crops (Chart 13). Chart 13Soybeans Most Vulnerable To Shocks Affecting Major Producers At the other end of the spectrum, global wheat markets will be relatively more insulated from isolated weather events impacting any one major producer as each of these regions contributes a relatively small share to global wheat output. This analysis also finds that yields and supply generally recover in the crop year following an extreme climate event. This implies that while the extent of damage from these events can be severe, they are not persistent unless the increasing frequency of extreme events leads to a secular change. Aside from the price impact, the weather and temperature changes will manifest in the form of greater volatility in supply, translating to greater price volatility. Options-implied volatilities for corn, wheat and soybeans have been on a general downtrend since the two major global food scares in 2007/08 and 2010/11 (Chart 14). We expect the trend to reverse going forward as the frequency of weather events will create greater price uncertainty. We summarize the findings of this report in Table 3 (Appendix, on page 16). Chart 14Volatility Will Go Up Roukaya Ibrahim Editor/Strategist RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso Research Analyst JeremieP@bcaresearch.com Amr Hanafy Research Associate AmrH@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger Senior Analyst HugoB@bcaresearch.com Isabelle Dimyadi Research Associate Isabelled@bcaresearch.com Appendix Table 2Extreme Weather Events In The U.S. Table 3Summary Table Footnotes 1 Please see Vogel et al, The effects of climate extremes on global agricultural yields, Environ. Res. Lett 14 054010, 2019. 2 As a consequence of greenhouse gas emissions precipitation is expected to increase in high altitude regions such as much of the U.S. and decrease in subtropical regions such as the southwest U.S., Central America, southern Africa, and the Mediterranean basin. 3 Plants can be broken down into either C3 or C4 based on the way they assimilate atmospheric CO2 into different physiological components. While rising CO2 causes C3 plants to raise the rate of photosynthesis and reduce the respiration rate, C4 plants do not experience a rise in photosynthesis since  photosynthesis is already saturated. For example, studies show that soybean yields increased 12%-15% under 550 ppm vs. 370 ppm CO2 concentrations while corn experienced negligible yield increases. 4 Please see Lesk C., P. Rowhani, and N. Ramankutty, Influence of extreme weather disasters on global crop production, Nature, 529(7584), 84-87, 2016. 5 Please see The State Of Food And Agriculture: Climate Change, Agriculture, And Food Security, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2016. 6 Please see Stevanovic et al., The impact of high-end climate change on agricultural welfare, Sci-Adv 2(8), 2016.

Special Report

Highlights As an introduction to a series of BCA Special Reports on the investment consequences of climate change, we review the science around the subject and suggest a framework for analyzing its implications. The scientific consensus is that global warming is a reality and most likely human-induced. However, the uncertainty around the magnitude of the impact of climate change is large. The consequences of climate change are delayed, uncertain and global. But, for investors, the prudent course of action is to accept the scientific consensus – and the impact it will have on policymakers – and hedge or invest appropriately.  Feature Chart 1Climate Change Global Perception Bank of England Governor Mark Carney has called climate change “the tragedy of the horizon.” It is now perceived as a major threat across the globe (Chart 1). As such, it is essential to assess its macro and market consequences. In this introduction to our Climate Change Special Series, we review the existing literature and suggest a framework to assess the market relevance of this phenomenon. Going forward, we will produce a series of market-driven reports designed to help investors both mitigate the risk to their portfolios and identify opportunities arising from climate change. We intend to cover topics such as green financing, energy, and the geopolitical aspect of climate change, just to cite a few.  These reports will incorporate both quantitative and qualitative analysis to generate actionable investment recommendations. What Is Climate Change? Climate science is not new. The initial understanding of the effect of heat-trapping gases on global temperature dates back to Joseph Fourier’s early 1800s study of planetary temperature. Subsequent research showed the importance of the greenhouse effect, a phenomenon whereby greenhouse gas molecules (e.g. CO2, CH4, N2O) absorb infrared radiation emitted from Earth before reemitting it in all directions, including back to the Earth’s surface, thus making it harder for this energy to leave the planet. This excess of energy stored in the planet, above its normal energy balance, causes temperature increases. The distribution of environmental damages caused by global warming will not be uniform around the world. The rate of warming and other climate changes will differ across regions due to climate processes and feedbacks linked to local conditions.1 Regardless, up to 14% of the global population will experience above 2°C (3.6°F) warming – a level seen by scientists as a trigger for permanent damages and changes – even if the increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST) were limited to 2°C (3.6°F) by 2100 (CarbonBrief, 2018). The consequences of climate change are delayed, uncertain and global.  Even under the maximum policy effort scenario, studies assign 60% odds to an increase greater than 2°C (3.6°F) (Nordhaus, 2018). The longer policymakers, companies and investors delay tackling this issue, the less likely the world will stay below the 2°C threshold and the more rapid and abrupt the transition to a low-carbon economy will eventually be. A sudden transition will be more disruptive to the economy and damaging to investors. Defining The Issue: The Earth’s Atmosphere As A Global Common The Earth’s atmosphere - specifically its function as a sink for CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHG) - falls within the problem of the global commons.2 It is a natural resource requiring global cooperation for its sustainable use and provision. Problematically, the consequences of climate change are delayed, uncertain and global.  Delayed because the burden of climate change policies mainly falls on current generations, whereas the benefits of lower climate damage accrue to future generations, leading every generation to think it can survive the issue and let the next generations handle it. Uncertain because the list of harms from climate change lengthens with the advance in climate-science studies. We learn more and more about the extent to which human activities are at fault and the extent of the damage that will befall the planet. Global because it does not matter whether the emissions take place in China, Europe, or the U.S. since GHG mix immediately once in the atmosphere. In that sense, it is a collective-action problem in which every country’s interest is to shift the abatement costs onto its neighbor. The global aspect is crucial. The optimal emission level of one country does not follow the global social optimal. Hence, every country has an incentive to emit as much GHG as possible now, before any consequences occur (Combes, 2016). What We Know So Far: Historical Data Both climate-alarmist and climate-denier groups have captured the public debate.This polarization clouds the underlying facts about current trends and the difference between what is unlikely, likely, or very likely to happen. The resulting lack of consensus will lead to over- or under-adaptation by the various economic agents, depending on their interests. FACT 1: GLOBAL WARMING IS A REALITY Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) have risen steadily since the industrial revolution and at a brisk pace relative to the previous 12,000 years (Chart 2). Chart 2GHG Global Emissions Global Mean Surface Temperature - It rose by an estimated 1°C (1.8°F) from 1901 to 2016. According to NASA data, the 10 warmest years recorded in the past 139 years all occurred after 2005 (Chart 3). Chart 3Global Land And Ocean Temperature Global Mean Sea level - It has risen by an estimated 20.3cm (8 inches) since 1900 due to the expansion of waters and meltwater from shrinking ice sheets. Almost half of this rise happened in the last 25 years (Chart 4). Glacier and Ice Sheet - The melting of ice sheets will reduce the earth’s reflectivity, accelerating the warming process (Chart 5). The record low of sea ice extent in the Arctic and Antarctic was observed in 2012 and 2017, respectively. Chart 4Global Mean Sea Level Chart 5Glacier And Ice Sheet Precipitation - Historical changes in precipitation are much more volatile and region-specific than temperature and sea level changes. Moreover, there is a lack of data covering the period before 1951, which leads to low confidence in estimates of precipitation for this period and medium confidence post-1951. Annual average precipitation for global land areas increased slightly over the period 1901–2008, and the magnitude of observed changes varies across different datasets (Hartmann, 2013). Extreme Weather Events - These are defined, in a meteorological sense, as events at the “edges of the complete range of weather experienced in the past.” The frequency and severity of extreme weather events has been linked to global warming (Table 1) (Scott, 2016). Table 1Extreme Weather Events (1950 - Present) FACT 2: CLIMATE CHANGE IS HUMAN-INDUCED The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – considered the world’s most authoritative scientific body on climate change – concluded in 2013 that the probability that global warming was human-induced was at least 95% (Table 2).  Table 2Evolution Of The Assessments Of Human Influence On Climate Change Chart 6Global Warming & Global GHG Emissions Since the late nineteenth century, GHG emissions – mainly CO2 – and global land and ocean mean temperature have shared a common steep upward trend (Chart 6). A recent study by Mann et al. estimates that in the absence of GHG emissions, the odds that 13 out of the 15 warmest years ever measured would all have happened in the current century are extremely small.3 More recently, a report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) concluded that “[I]n many cases, it is now possible to make and defend quantitative statements about the extent to which human-induced climate change has influenced either the magnitude or the probability of occurrence of specific types of events or event classes.”  According to most recent peer-reviewed studies, at least 97% of actively publishing climate scientists now accept human-caused climate warming (Cook, 2016). While science is not a matter of popular vote, this level of consensus among experts suggests that for investors the most prudent course of action is to accept the scientific consensus and hedge or invest appropriately. Projections & Assumptions Chart 7Global Emissions Projections Climate economics deals with conditional projections based on unknown probability distributions, implying a high level of uncertainty. The level of confidence around the nearer segments of the projections is relatively elevated. Conversely, at the far end of the projected period, by 2100 for most studies, the uncertainty increases drastically. According to the United Nations Environment Programs’ 2018 Emissions Gap report,  the 2°C (3.6°F) target drafted in the Paris Agreement in 2015 would require global emissions to be capped at 40 gigatons of CO2 equivalent by 2030. Throughout our Climate Change Special Series, we will rely on the following assumptions based on the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) and the summary estimates from around 150 academic papers, the majority of which were published in 2018 (CarbonBrief, 2018).  Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Global emissions rose in 2017 and are now ~14 GtCO2e above the required level by 2030. Current pledges are insufficient to meet the Paris Agreement’s long-term temperature goals (Chart 7). Key factors driving changes in anthropogenic GHG emissions are mainly economic and population growth. Projections of greenhouse gas emissions vary over a wide range, depending on both socio-economic development and climate policy – which are fundamentally uncertain. Climate economics deals with conditional projections based on unknown probability distributions, implying a high level of uncertainty. The majority of models indicate that scenarios meeting levels similar to RCP2.6 (a scenario that aims to keep global warming likely below 2°C (3.6°F) above pre-industrial temperatures) are characterized by substantial net negative emissions by 2100, on average 2 GtCO2e per year.   Chart 8Global Mean Surface Temperature Projections Global Mean Surface Temperature - Under all assessed emission scenarios, surface temperature is projected to rise over the twenty-first century. The change over the 2016-2035 period will be very similar to 1986-2005, and will likely be in the range of 0.3°C to 0.7°C (0.5°F to 1.3°F). Beyond that, the mean temperature rise across IPCC scenarios for 2046-65 and 2081-2100 is estimated to be 1.4°C (2.5°F) and 2.2°C (4°F), respectively (Chart 8). These estimates imply that there will be more frequent hot and fewer cold temperature extremes over most land areas on daily and seasonal timescales. Global Mean Sea Level - It has been established that the likelihood sea levels will rise in more than 95% of the ocean area is very high. Under all IPCC scenarios, the rate of sea level rise will very likely exceed the observed rate during 1971-2010. About 70% of the coastlines worldwide are in fact projected to experience sea level change within +/- 20% of the global mean. Precipitation - There are likely more land regions where the number of heavy precipitation events has increased than where it has decreased. Recent detection of increasing trends in extreme precipitation and discharge in some catchments implies greater risks of flooding at regional scale (medium confidence). These changes will not be uniform, with high latitudes and the equatorial Pacific more likely to experience an increase in annual mean precipitation while many mid-latitude and subtropical dry regions are likely to experience a decrease in mean precipitation. It remains a challenge to determine long-term trends in precipitation for the global oceans. Extreme Weather Events - Projections on extreme weather events can only infer the probability distribution of such events, i.e. more or less likely to happen. With a 1°C (1.8°F) additional warming, risks from extreme weather events are high (medium confidence from IPCC). More importantly, we can say with high confidence that these risks increase progressively with further warming.     Embracing Uncertainty The uncertainty around the magnitude of the impact of climate change is large. Yet, bounded uncertainty is informational. We can extract the following important, actionable conclusions: Projections for economic variables are relatively more uncertain than for geophysical variables. The link between GHG emissions and rising temperature is more certain than the level of emissions, output, and damages (Nordhaus, 2018).  Therefore, the largest uncertainty comes from economic growth and the level of emissions. We do not rely on estimates of global GDP impacts. On the other hand, it is easier to build scenarios for geophysical variables and obtain investment-relevant information from these projections. Simulating the path of future emission allows us to map this onto future temperature, sea level, and extreme weather variations. Economic models suggest that the higher the uncertainty, the larger the weights on low-probability/high-impact scenarios. This implies a positive risk premium due to risk aversion and favors stricter mitigation policies as insurance to shattering outcomes. As climate models are fine-tuned and continuously point to large damage uncertainty, the desired strength of policy could increase. Win-Win or “no-regrets” investments are the most likely at first.4 The Kaya Identity provides a simple framework to project future GHG emissions to visualize the uncertainty associated with different assumptions. The identity links future emissions to observable macroeconomic variables (see the Appendix for more details): F = P * (G/P) * (E/G) *(F/E) Where F denotes global CO2 emissions from human sources, P represents global population, G equals global GDP, and E is global energy consumption. The identity provides a useful framework for policymakers. To reduce emissions, there needs to be a reduction in one or more of the identity's components. Altering demographic trends and reducing global GDP per capita are very unlikely to happen given the damaging impact it could have – both for individuals and politicians’ careers!  At a global level, this leaves us with energy efficiency and carbon intensity of energy as the only key and viable options to reduce CO2 emissions.  Why Does It Matter To Investors? Markets are probably still underpricing climate-related risks because the effects only materialize gradually and in the long term – exceeding most investors’ investment horizon. Investors such as pension funds, insurers, wealth managers, and endowments need to be responsive to the threat posed by climate change. They typically have multi-decade time horizons, with portfolio exposure across the global economy. Their increasing interest in Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) measures fits well within this context.5 It reflects a need for more transparency and more stringent investing standards. Determining which firms or sectors will either win or lose the “green race” will be of the outmost importance to investors. Businesses are still navigating the financial and operational implications of climate change. To some extent, this can already be assessed based on the readiness of firms and sectors to adapt to a green economy – looking at the number of environmental technology patent applications, for example. Markets are probably still underpricing climate-related risks. The financing needed to mitigate climate change represents yet another opportunity for investors. Green bonds and sustainability-linked debt instruments are more widespread than ever. Sustainable debt issuance reached record levels last year, with a total of $260 billion issued, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance data. Year-to-date issuance has nearly reached $180 billion.  Green bonds offer two main benefits to issuers:  corporate branding that sends a strong signal to the market of their commitment to climate change, and a wider investor base. Our series of market-driven reports are intended to both identify the risks and opportunities arising from climate change in order to help investors mitigating the risk to their portfolios. They will rely on the simple framework we present below. Climate Change Framework In future reports in our Climate Change Special Series, we will summarize our findings using a comprehensive analytical framework developed by Batten (2018) to assess the impact of climate change via physical and transition risks with respect to the type of shock induced by each type of risk. Physical Risks Physical risks are the most visible and immediate source of risk to investors and the financial sector. They can be defined as those risks that arise from the interaction between climate-related events and human and natural systems, including their ability to adapt— e.g. the volatility in food prices following a drought or a flood.6 An increase in climate-induced physical risks – such as heat waves, floods and storm – will have a direct effect on insurers. If these risks are uninsured, the deterioration of the balance sheets of affected households and corporations is likely to hurt the banking system. Electrical utilities, real estate and transportation infrastructure are other physical assets at risk of capital losses. Transition Risks Chart 9Public Opinion Of Policy Options To Tackle Climate Change Transition risks can be defined as the risks of economic dislocation and financial losses associated with the transition to a lower-carbon economy. Detrimental effects manifest themselves through three possible channels: Reduced production and consumption of high carbon products, especially energy produced using fossil fuels, potentially leading to stranded assets. Improvement in the energy efficiency of existing products and processes – energy intensity. Moving to low-carbon energy production – that is reducing carbon intensity. Lower energy intensity and carbon intensity, highlighted in the Kaya Identity above, can be achieved through technological innovation. The relationship between climate change and policy or regulatory framework is manifold, as policymakers will need both to respond to the consequences of climate change and to shape future GHG emissions. The primary responsibility for strategic planning rests with governments, which have a variety of policy options at their disposal (Chart 9).  Table 3 provides a useful template to link both physical and transition risks to the type of shocks they can induce, and importantly, how it can ultimately turn into financial and geopolitical risks. Table 3A Simple And Useful Template To Summarize Our Findings Climate change can impact demand (from investment, consumption or trade) or supply (labor, capital stock, technology or other inputs). For example, transition risks such as distortions from asymmetric climate policies across countries could directly impact trade or investment (FDI). This is what is commonly referred to as the pollution haven hypothesis, which states that more stringent environmental regulations induce polluting industries to relocate to countries with relatively lax environmental regulations. Ensuing reports in the Climate Change Special Series will include this template as a mean to summarize our findings. APPENDIX The Kaya Identity And Uncertainty Feedback Loop7 Diagram 1The Uncertainty Feedback Loop The Kaya Identity links observable macroeconomic and demographic variables to GHG emissions: CO2 = P * (Y / P) * (E / Y) * (CO2 / E) Where denotes P global population, Y global GDP, and E primary energy consumption.    It highlights the large degree of uncertainty around the macroeconomic impact on GHG emissions – especially at the end of the forecast period when additional uncertainty emanates from the feedback loop illustrated in Diagram 1. Historical Trend In CO2 Emissions From 1990 to 2014 CO2 emissions growth was 2.1% p.a.8: Global CO2 emissions during this period were pushed higher by population growth (1.3% p.a.) and rising rates of GDP per capita (1.9% p.a.). This was partly offset by declining energy intensity (-1.3% p.a.) (Chart 10). Chart 10Kaya Identity Components: Global Level The extent of the impact of these variables on CO2 emissions is region-specific. Therefore, when the identity is expressed at an aggregate and global level, it can lead to inaccuracies in long-term scenario analysis since it does not account for dependencies across the variables and does not differentiate between high population growth in countries with low vs. high GDP per capita growth, or between high GDP per capita growth from countries with high vs. low carbon intensity energy sources.  Using The Kaya Identity To Project Future GHG Emissions Population - The UN currently expect the population to grow by an average 0.4% p.a. through 2100 in its medium variant scenario. GDP per capita - The OECD projects GDP per capita will grow 2.2% p.a. between 2018 and 2060. Energy Intensity - We assume a 1.5% p.a. decline in energy intensity over the 2018-2100 period – the trend over the past decade. Carbon Intensity - In line with scenario B2 of the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES), we assume a 0.4% p.a. Combined, this leads to a 21% increase in CO2 emission by 2050, and a 63% increase by 2100. Accounting for other scenarios for each component results to a wide range of potential cumulative CO2 emissions; a median temperature between 2.6°C and 4.8°C by 2100 (Table 4). It is noteworthy that a rise in temperature above 2°C by 2100 is almost certain under all these scenarios. Table 4Scenarios Using The Kaya Identity Emission Reduction Possibilities Table 5Policy Approach Per Factor To reduce CO2 emissions, policies aimed at reducing the growth rate of one or more of the Kaya Identity’s components will be needed (Table 5). Assuming a constraint-free world, reducing average population and income growth rates to 0% from the projected 0.4% and 2.1% would reduce cumulative emission by 60% in 2100 vs. the baseline. Economic growth is the main driver of emissions growth. For instance, post-GFC, Europe’s emissions have been subdued due to poor economic growth. However, the constraints on these variables exist and are binding. These are not the area of focus to tackle climate change. Consequently, this leaves energy efficiency and carbon intensity of energy as the only viable options to reduce GHG emissions. In order to avoid breaching the 2°C target, the IPCC estimates CO2 concentration needs to be capped below 400 ppm by 2100. This can only be achieved by significant improvements to energy efficiency. Economic theory suggests that given that energy is a cost of production, energy efficiency will continue to improve. However, the required pace of reduction in energy intensity surpasses the incentive provided by the price mechanism. The externalities of an energy intensive economy are delayed and uncertain. Thus, these are not fully included in the cost-benefit analysis of investing in new technology. As a result, policies aimed at reducing the carbon intensity of global energy input will be an important source of CO2 reduction. This includes decreasing the carbon intensity of fossil fuels – e.g. switching coal to natural gas and developing carbon capture and storage technology – and reducing the share of fossil fuels in the energy mix – e.g. switching fossil fuel energy to renewables. We will expand on alternative sources of energy in a subsequent report. Importantly, the policy response should differ between regions. The drivers of emissions are heterogeneous and policies should fit the regional reality. The Kaya Identity can also be applied at the country or regional level. Chart 11The Kaya Identity Applied At The Country Level U.S. - Elevated income growth offset by increasing energy efficiency (Chart 11, panel 1). China - Robust income growth drove CO2 emissions higher (Chart 11, panel 2). Europe - Falling energy intensity and carbon intensity led to a decline in emissions (Chart 11, panel 3). References Fourier, J. (1827). Mémoire sur les Températures du Globe Terrestre et des Espaces Planétaires, Mémoires de l’Académie Royale des Sciences, 7, 569-604. ‘Global’ warming varies greatly depending where you live, published by CarbonBrief on July 2, 2018. Nordhaus, William (2018). Projections and Uncertainties about Climate Change in an Era of Minimal Climate Policies, American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 10(3): 333-360. Edenhofer, O. et al. (2015), The Atmosphere as a Global Common, The Oxford Handbook of the Macroeconomics of Global Warming. Hardin, Garrett (1968), The Tragedy of the Commons, Science 162, no. 3859: 1243–1248. Jean-Louis Combes et al. (2016), A review of the economic theory of the commons, Revue d’économie du développement, Vol 27.  Climate Science as Culture War, Stanford Social Innovation Review (Fall 2012). The Fourth National Climate Assessment: Volume 2 Impact, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States, U.S. Global Change Research Program (2018) and Climatic Research Unit temperature database Hartmann et al. (2013), Observations: Atmosphere and Surface. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Scott, P. (2016), How climate change affects extreme weather events, Science 352(6293):1517-1518. Mann et al. (2016), The Likelihood of Recent Record Warmth, Scientific Reports 6:19831. Fischer, E. M., and R. Knutti, Anthropogenic Contribution to Global Occurrence of Heavy-Precipitation and High-Temperature Extremes, Nature Climate Change 5 (April 27, 2015): 560. Cook et al. (2016), Consensus on Consensus: A Synthesis of Consensus Estimates on Human-Caused Global Warming, Environmental Research Letters 11, 4:048002. The impacts of climate change at 1.5C, 2C and beyond, CarbonBrief (2018). The Emissions Gap Report 2018, United Nations (2018). Batten, Sandra (2018), Climate change and the macro-economy: a critical review, Bank of England Staff Working Paper No. 706. Robert S.J. Tol (2019), Climate Economics: Economic Analysis of Climate, Climate Change and Climate Policy, Cheltenham, U.K. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Hugo Bélanger Senior Analyst HugoB@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso Research Analyst JeremieP@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For instance, Canada is estimated to be warming at twice the global rate. 2 The term “global commons” is used to define common resources or environmental issues crossing national boundaries. They have either no well-defined property right (no individual or nation has private control of their use) or lack an international enforcement mechanism to control their use (Edenhofer, 2015). The market failures associated with common pool resources (CPR) were popularized in Garret Hardin’s famous 1968 paper “Tragedy of the Commons”. 3 The likelihood is between 1 in 5,000 and 1 in 170,000 chances. 4 No-regret strategies are cost-effective under multiple climate change and policy response scenarios. Win-win actions provide beneficial externality while contributing to adaptation to various climate change scenarios. Under uncertainty, these strategies are the most likely to be implemented to begin the adaptation process rather than a riskier wait-and-see approach. Please see “Examples of ‘no-regret’, ‘low-regret’ and ‘win-win’ adaptation actions,” published by climate exchange. It is available at climatexchange.org.uk. 5 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “ESG Investing: No Harm, Some Benefit,” dated November 21, 2018, and available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see BCA Special Reports, “Agriculture In The Age Of Climate Change,” dated October 23, 2019, and available at bca.bcaresearch.com 7 This section is largely inspired from Robert S.J. Tol (2019), Climate Economics: Economic Analysis of Climate, Climate Change and Climate Policy, Cheltenham, U.K. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. 8 Lowercase letters denote annual growth rates of each component.